From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
Cc: | Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: why does count take so long? |
Date: | 2003-09-08 04:24:50 |
Message-ID: | 29367.1062995090@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> writes:
> Joseph Shraibman <jks(at)selectacast(dot)net> wrote:
>> It looks like the aggregate took 10 secs all by itself. What's taking
>> so long?
> It looks like there are 8 million log records that need to be counted.
Yeah, but I think he's complaining about the 10sec delta for the
aggregate on top of the 71sec to read the 8 million rows. That
seems high to me too. On a 10-mil-row test table, I get
regression=# explain analyze select count(*) from foo;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=22.50..22.50 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=189865.81..189865.81 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=0) (actual time=18.88..163833.61 rows=10240000 loops=1)
Total runtime: 189865.91 msec
(3 rows)
in other words 26sec to do the aggregate on top of 163sec to read the
rows.
Unless Joseph's machine has a way better IO-to-CPU ratio than my little
development machine, there's something odd about his numbers.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2003-09-08 04:50:49 | ISO 8601 "Time Intervals" of the "format with time-unit deignators" |
Previous Message | Gagan Anand | 2003-09-08 04:21:54 | bolb data type |